Inspection of the court file in the Tel-Aviv District Court raises serious concerns that Judge David Rosen engaged in deliberate perversion of court records. The judgments, pertaining to Defendant Olmert, which were declared in open court and widely reported by media, were never entered in the case management system of the Court. And in the Supreme Court, the findings raise serious concerns that the Justices are conducting an appeal process with no authority and no validity, and deny access to inspect court records, in order to cover-up such conduct. Supreme Court Presiding Justice Naor was asked to perform her duties and establish procedure for inspection of the appeal court file in the Supreme Court in the Holyland corruption affair.

Figures: Presiding Justice Miriam Naor, Judge David Rosen, Shula Zaken and Ehud Olmert on the background of the Holyland complex...

_____________

OccupyTLV, October 11 - Supreme Court Presiding Justice Naor was asked to perform her duties and urgently establish procedure for inspection the appeal file in the Supreme Court of the Holyland corruption affair - one of the worst in the history of the State of Israel.The findings in the court files, originating in the Holyland corruption affair in the Tel-Aviv District Court and the Supreme Court raise serious concerns regarding integrity of the records in State of Israel v Zernik (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court, and regarding integrity of Net-HaMishpat (IT system/ case management system of the courts) in general. Inspection of the court file in the Tel-Aviv District Court raises serious concerns that Judge David Rosen engaged in deliberate perversion of court records. The judgments, pertaining to Defendant Olmert, which were declared in open court and widely reported by media, were never entered in the case management system of the Court.The findings raise serious concerns that the Supreme Court conducted a judicial process with no jurisdiction and no validity in Olmert v State of Israel (4478/14) – Request for Extension of Time to File and Appeal – with no lawfully made judgment record form the Tel-Aviv District Court, as the origin of the process in the Supreme Court.The findings raise the most serious concerns that the Supreme Court is today conducting an appeal process with no jurisdiction and no validity in Olmert v State of Israel (5270/14) – Criminal Appeal – with no lawfully made judgment record form the Tel-Aviv District Court, as the origin of the appeal. Moreover - that the Justices in this court file delay the inspection of the decisions and judgments, named above, in order to prevent the documentation of their conduct in this process.The 2009 Judgment in petition Association of Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice (5917/97) declared the right to insepct court records “a fundamental principle in a democratic regime” and “a constitutional, supra-statutory right”. However, delays in inspection of decisions and judgments, as affected in this case, undermine the right to inspect court records from its foundation. Likewise, they undermine the Human Rights for “fair, public hearing”.The Holyland corruption affair is one of the worst corruption scandals in the history of the State of Israel, and inspection of the records, named above, is essential for maintaining public trust in the judicial process.Therefore, Presiding Justice Naor of the Supreme Court was asked to urgently publish procedures for inspection of decisions and judgments in the paper court files of the Supreme Court in general, and in particular – establish procedures for materializing the inspection of the judgment records, named above, in Olmert v State of Israel (5270/14) - Criminal Appeal.

Following is the complete letter

October
11,
2015

Presiding Justice Miriam Naor

Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Shaarey Mishpat Street, Jerusalem

By certified mail

RE: Urgent request for publishing
procedures for inspection of decisions and judgments in the paper court files
of the Supreme Court in general, and in particular in Ehud Olmert v State of
Israel (5270/14) – Criminal Appeal in the Holyland affair

Your response within 14 days is kindly
requested. Time is of the essence!

Dear
Presiding Justice Naro:

I
herein urgently request that you publish procedures for inspecting decisions
and judgments in the paper court files of the Supreme Court in general, and in
particular, establish procedure for materializing the inspection in Ehud
Olmert v State of Israel (5270/14) – Criminal Appeal in the Holyland
affair.

Presiding Judge
of the court shall establish procedures and times for inspection of the files
of the respective court.

In
recent years I have been conducting a survey as part of an academic study,
relative to exercising public access to court record, following the overarching
changes in administration of the courts over the past decade, including:
Implementation of the E-sign Act, new Regulations of the Office of the Clerk,
new Regulations of the Courts (Inspection of Court Files), and the
implementation of new IT systems in the courts.

In this
context, I have tried to inspect decisions and judgments in various files of
the Supreme Court, but learned that no inspection procedures have been
published, as prescribed by Article 6(b), above. The Office of the Clerk
demanded that I file “Request for Inspection” and obtain judicial decisions,
which I claim are not required at all for inspection of decisions and judgments,
which are not lawfully prohibited for publication. The right to inspect decisions and judgments,
which are not lawfully prohibited for publication, is prescribed by law for
every person, pursuant to Article 2(b), above.

The
matter is now urgent, relative to my attempts to locate and inspect decisions
and judgments in Olmert v State of Israel (5270/14), which originates in
the Holyland affair – one of the worst corruption cases in the history of the
State of Israel.

Following
is an outline of my attempts, over half a year long, to inspect decisions and
judgments, which originate in the Tel-Aviv District Court, and which were
“physically” transferred to the Supreme Court:

1)Court file State of Israel v Zerni (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court

Figure: “Post-it Decision” by Judge David Rosen on Request to
Inspect duly made judgment records, pertaining to Defendant Ehud Olmert in the
Holyland corruption affair: “The court file, in which inspection is
requested, is physically located in the Supreme Court, as part of the appeal of
the judgment. Therefore, it is not
possible to grant the request.”
The declaration of such judgments in open court was widely reported by
media, but the records were never entered in the electronic case management system
of the Tel-Aviv District Court. Judge David Rosen refused to provide a signed
and certified copy of the “Post-it Decision”...
The Supreme Court purportedly conducts an appeal from such judgments,
but effectively denies access to inspect the appeal file, to ascertain that
such records indeed exist...

____

Inspection
of the records in this court file in Net-HaMishpat (IT system of the magistrate
and district courts) revealed that Judge David Rosen maintained double-books
for the Decisions Docket in this court file.
Regardless of the fact that the file is “open to the public” - not
lawfully sealed - only a small minority of the decisions in this court file
were registered in the Decisions Docket of the public access system.

Moreover,
the majority of the decision records, which are registered in the public
Decisions Docket are blatantly invalid and ineffectual records – perverted,
truncated and/or unsigned.

Most
alarming, no lawfully made verdict and sentencing records were entered in the
case management system for Defendants Ehud Olmert, while the declaration of
such judgments in open court was widely reported by media.

Therefore, I filed on March 16, 2015, in this court
file a Request to Inspect (Request No 298), pertaining to decisions and
judgments as follows:

On
March 18, 2015, a “Post-it Decision” by Judge David Rosen was registered in the
Decisions Docket of the court's access system (but not in the public Decisions
Docket, and therefore, I couldn't even know of its existence), which says:

The court file, in which inspection is requested, is
physically located in the Supreme Court, as part of the appeal of the
judgment. Therefore, it is not possible
to grant the request.

It should be noted that the March 18,
2015 "Post-it Decision", on its face, would not be deemed by a
reasonable person a valid and effectual record of any court:

a) It is unsigned and uncertified,
bears no seal of the court or coat of arms of the State of Israel.

b) The "Post-it Decision"
record has never been duly served.

c) Judge David Rosen refused to provide
a signed and certified copy of the "Post-it Decision" record.

The "Post-it Decision" record is also dubious
relative to its content: In a court, which has been managing its court files
electronically for over 5 years, a judge claims that it is impossible to
inspect judgment records, since they are not "physically" located in
the court…

2)Court file Olmert v State of Israel (4478/14) – Request for
Extending Time to File an Appeal – in the Supreme Court

Under such circumstances, and in an effort to ascertain that
such lawfully made judgment records exist at all, relative to the verdict and
sentencing of Defendant Ehud Olmert, I filed the March 23, 2015 “Request to Inspect” in Olmert v State of Israel (4478/14) in the Supreme Court.

On June 28, 2015, Decision was published by Supreme Court
Magistrate Lubinsky , permitting inspection in this court file.

On August 19, 2015, I materialized the
inspection in this court file. It turned
out that the court file included three components:

a. A cardboard folder, including: (1)
"Request for Extension of Time to File a Reasoned Notice of Appeal",
which was filed by counsel for Requester Ehud Olmert; (2) Consent by counsel
for the State Prosecution, and (3) June 26, 2014 "Decision" record by
Supreme Court Magistrate Guy Shani, granting the Request. (4) Records related
to my Request to Inspect.

b. A plastic bound booklet, including a
683 page printout from "Nevo" commercial system, of a
"Verdict", including syllabus notes and other additions, which is not
an authentic court record of the State of Israel, surely is not a duly signed
and certified court record.

c.A plastic bound booklet, including: (1)
Printout of a "Sentencing" record of unknown origin, which is not an
authentic court record of the State of Israel, surely is not a duly signed and
certified court record; (2) Printout of a May 25, 2014 "Post-it
Decision" record, unsigned and uncertified, by Judge David Rosen,
pertaining to "Request by Joint Stipulation for Correction of Error in
Judgment".

The record, titled "Request for Extension of Time to
File a Reasoned Notice of Appeal", in this court file also fails to refer
in any manner to the filing of the attachments as exhibits, and also fails to
refer to their content. Additionally,
the attachments are not marked in any manner as such, or as part of the
Request. Such deficiencies should be
deemed additional failure in authentication of the attachments of the “Request
for Extension”.

Additionally, in conversation with Requester Ehud Olmert's
counsel on August 20, 2015, it became apparent that he was fully aware of the
fact that the attachments to the “Request for Extension” were not
authentic court records at all, but he claimed that there was no significance
to such facts.

In contrast, the Criminal Procedures Act (1982),
Article 32a, says:

The Appellant shall attach to the Notice of Appeal, and the
Requester shall attach to a Request for a Leave to File an Appeal, certified
copies of the judgments of lower instances; such duty shall not be imposed on
the Appellant in case he is a prisoner, filing in pro se.

a) Receiving
of the filing of the “Request for Extension” and the opening of this court file
should be deemed serious perversion and a failure in conduct of the Office of
the Clerk of the Supreme Court, since the attachments, required by law, which
were filed with the Request in instant court file, were not authentic
court records at all, surely were not valid, signed and certified court
records.

b) Rendering a decision in this court file
by Supreme Court Magistrate Guy Shani should be deemed serious perversion and a
judicial failure in conduct of a Magistrate of the Supreme Court. In any matter, related to instant appeal, the
Supreme Court acts as an appeal court.
As such, its jurisdiction authority originates only in valid and
effectual judgments of the lower court – the Tel-Aviv District Court. Therefore, absent the filing of valid,
certified (authentic) court records of the lower court, the Supreme Court had
and has no jurisdiction in this matter at all.

The October 7, 2015 “Urgent Notice and Request” is pending before the Supreme
Court.

(6)Verdict, Sentencing
records and/or their proof of service or any other type of authentication, as
filed, if filed, with the Supreme Court by Appellant Ehud Olmert with his
Appeal record (but excluded from the “Pro Form Request” was the Appeal record
itself).

The “Pro Forma Request” claims
that pursuant to the Regulations, there is no need for a “Request to Inspect”
relative to decisions and judgments, which are not lawfully prohibited for
publication. Therefore, the “Pro Forma
Request” was filed only in order to establish the procedure for inspection of
the named records.

No decision was rendered on the
“Pro Forma Request to Inspect” to this date.

Therefore, on October 7, 2015, I
tried to file a “Notice of Inspection”, pertaining to the records, named above,
claiming that there is no need for a “Request for Inspection” and a judicial
decision permitting inspection for inspecting decisions and judgments, which
are not lawfully prohibited for publication.
The Office of the Clerk rejected the filing of such “Notice of
Inspection” “for discrepancy”, and instructed me to file instead a “Request for
Rendering a Decision”, pertaining to my August 19, 2015 “Pro Forma Request to Inspect”.

The latter two requests are still
pending before the Supreme Court.

Summary

The findings in the court files,
originating in the Holyland corruption affair in the Tel-Aviv District Court
and the Supreme Court raise serious concerns regarding integrity of the records
in State of Israel v Zernik (10291-01-12)
in the Tel-Aviv District Court, and regarding integrity of Net-HaMishpat (IT
system/ case management system of the courts) in general.

The findings raise serious
concerns that the Supreme Court conducted a judicial process with no
jurisdiction and no validity in Olmert v State of Israel (4478/14) –
Request for Extension of Time to File and Appeal – with no lawfully made
judgment record form the Tel-Aviv District Court, as the origin of the process
in the Supreme Court.

The findings raise the most
serious concerns that the Supreme Court is today conducting an appeal process
with no jurisdiction and no validity in Olmert v State of Israel
(5270/14) – Criminal Appeal – with no lawfully made judgment record form the
Tel-Aviv District Court, as the origin of the appeal. Moreover - that the Justices in this court
file delay the inspection of the decisions and judgments, named above, in order
to prevent the documentation of their conduct in this process.

The 2009 Judgment in petition Association
of Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice (5917/97) declared the
right to insepct court records “a fundamental principle in a democratic regime”
and “a constitutional, supra-statutory right”.
However, delays in inspection of decisions and judgments, as affected in
this case, undermine the right to inspect court records from its
foundation. Likewise, they undermine the
Human Rights for “fair, public hearing”.

The Holyland corruption affair is
one of the worst corruption scandals in the history of the State of Israel, and
inspection of the records, named above, is essential for maintaining public
trust in the judicial process.

Therefore, I herein request that
Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court urgently publish procedures for
inspection of decisions and judgments in the paper court files of the Supreme
Court in general, and in particular – establish procedures for materializing
the inspection of the judgment records, named above, in Olmert v State of Israel
(5270/14) - Criminal Appeal.

11-12-10 Where should Occupy go next? Civil Disobedience in the footsteps of Thoreau and Gandhi!http:// www.scribd.com/doc/75348301/12-06-08 Courts and Judges as racketeering enterprises under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) - key element in the current financial crisishttp://www.scribd.com/doc/96504009/Secede! The US in its current form is simply unmanageable...

What did the experts say?

* דוח סייג לזכויות האדם נכלל בדוח התקופתי של האו"ם לגבי זכויות האדם בישראל (2013), בלוויית ההערה: "חוסר יושרה בכתבים האלקטרוניים של בית המשפט העליון, בתי המשפט המחוזיים, ובתי הדין למוחזקי משמורת בישראל".* The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the 2010 Periodic Review Report regarding Humnan Rights in the United States, with the note: "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California".* The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the 2013 Periodic Review Report regarding Humnan Rights in Israel, with the note: "lack of integrity of the electronic records of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel."

The United States

* "...it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history... where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School

* Los Angeles County is"the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud."FBI (2004)

* “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."Prof David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000)

* “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine Law School (2000)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239647129/The HRA submission was incorporated into the 2015 HRC Professional Staff Report on the United States with the note: :“HRA NGO recommended restoring the integrity of the IT systems of the courts, under accountability to the Congress, with the goal of making such systems as transparent as possible to the public at large.”

[2] Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission for the 2013 UPR of the State of Israel was incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council Professional Staff Report with the note: "Lack of integrity in the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees' courts in Israel".

2012-06-04 Human Right Alert's Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel: Integrity, or lack thereof, of the

[3] Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission for the 2010 UPR of the United States was incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council Professional Staff Report with the note: "Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."

2010-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the

2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report:

[1] 10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, where Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission was incorporated with a note referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/http://www.scribd.com/doc/108663259/